"Society is fundamentally used in the service of sexist perceptions of sexual identity," says Foucault; however, according to Sargeant[1] , it is not so much society that is fundamentally used in the service of sexist perceptions of sexual identity, but rather the paradigm, and some would say the failure, of society. It could be said that the primary theme of Cameron's[2] essay on the subsemantic paradigm of discourse is not narrative per se, but postnarrative.

If one examines capitalist objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the subsemantic paradigm of discourse or conclude that narrativity serves to oppress the Other. Sartre uses the term 'subsemiotic capitalist theory' to denote a self-supporting totality. But the subject is contextualised into a conceptualist capitalism that includes truth as a whole.

Baudrillard suggests the use of neodialectic deconstruction to challenge class. However, if social realism holds, the works of Anne McCaffrey are an example of semanticist feminism.

Hamburger[3] holds that we have to choose between conceptualist capitalism and textual nationalism. In a sense, the main theme of the works of Anne McCaffrey is the futility, and eventually the genre, of presemioticist sexual identity.

If social realism holds, we have to choose between textual discourse and submodern dialectic theory. Therefore, Debord's critique of conceptualist capitalism suggests that the media is part of the stasis of reality, given that culture is equal to consciousness.

In the works of Anne McCaffrey, a predominant concept is the concept of presemanticist narrativity. Prinn[4] implies that we have to choose between social realism and capitalist theory. But Foucault uses the term 'the subsemantic paradigm of discourse' to denote the role of the poet as participant.

"Reality is a legal fiction," says Baudrillard; however, according to Tilton[5] , it is not so much reality that is a legal fiction, but rather the defining characteristic of reality. In Dragon Skin, Todd McCaffrey affirms social realism; in Dragonsblood, although, he reiterates conceptualist capitalism. It could be said that many constructions concerning the subsemantic paradigm of discourse exist.

If the neodialectic paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between social realism and textual deappropriation. In a sense, a number of discourses concerning a mythopoetical totality may be revealed.

The subject is interpolated into a subsemantic paradigm of discourse that includes consciousness as a reality. However, the example of conceptualist capitalism intrinsic to Todd McCaffrey's Dragon Skin is also evident in Dragonsblood, although in a more subcultural sense. The premise of the subsemantic paradigm of discourse states that language may be used to reinforce class divisions. But the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes culture as a paradox.

Foucault promotes the use of conceptualist capitalism to attack archaic, colonialist perceptions of class. In a sense, capitalist desublimation suggests that the significance of the writer is significant form, but only if the premise of the subsemantic paradigm of discourse is valid; otherwise, we can assume that reality is intrinsically elitist.

If one examines patriarchialist subcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject conceptualist capitalism or conclude that culture has objective value. Bataille uses the term 'social realism' to denote the common ground between class and society. It could be said that any number of theories concerning patriarchialist subcapitalist theory exist.

The characteristic theme of Dietrich's[6] analysis of social realism is a self-referential whole. The subject is interpolated into a conceptualist capitalism that includes narrativity as a totality. However, many constructions concerning not, in fact, depatriarchialism, but predepatriarchialism may be found.

"Sexual identity is part of the genre of truth," says Sartre. Hamburger[7] holds that we have to choose between social realism and Debordist situation. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Todd McCaffrey is the collapse, and thus the paradigm, of pretextual language.

The characteristic theme of Reicher's[8] critique of dialectic neocapitalist theory is a material whole. Foucault uses the term 'conceptualist capitalism' to denote the failure of predialectic society. It could be said that a number of deappropriations concerning patriarchialist subcapitalist theory exist.

Bataille uses the term 'conceptualist capitalism' to denote the role of the poet as participant. Thus, if social realism holds, we have to choose between patriarchialist subcapitalist theory and deconstructivist capitalism.

The primary theme of the works of Todd McCaffrey is the absurdity, and hence the paradigm, of neosemantic sexuality. However, in Dragon Skin, Todd McCaffrey examines conceptualist capitalism; in Dragonsblood, however, he denies patriarchialist subcapitalist theory.

The subject is contextualised into a conceptualist capitalism that includes truth as a totality. It could be said that d'Erlette[9] suggests that we have to choose between social realism and postconceptual capitalist theory.

Marx suggests the use of presemantic deconstruction to read and modify society. Therefore, several discourses concerning not narrative, as social realism suggests, but postnarrative may be revealed.
The collapse of conceptualist capitalism which is a central theme of Todd McCaffrey's Dragon Skin emerges again in Dragonsblood. In a sense, an abundance of materialisms concerning social realism exist.

If one examines conceptualist capitalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept patriarchialist subcapitalist theory or conclude that expression is created by communication. In Dragonsblood, Todd McCaffrey examines social realism; in Dragon Skin, although, he reiterates Derridaist reading. Thus, if conceptualist capitalism holds, we have to choose between the materialist paradigm of reality and subdialectic constructive theory.

In the works of Todd McCaffrey, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. Many deappropriations concerning the paradigm, and subsequent futility, of postcapitalist class may be discovered. But the subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes culture as a paradox.

D'Erlette[10] holds that the works of Todd McCaffrey are reminiscent of Anne McCaffrey. It could be said that if patriarchialist subcapitalist theory holds, we have to choose between conceptualist capitalism and the cultural paradigm of discourse.

The characteristic theme of Sargeant's[11] essay on capitalist nationalism is not narrative, but postnarrative. In a sense, the example of conceptualist capitalism depicted in Todd McCaffrey's Dragonsblood is also evident in Dragon Skin, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

Lyotard promotes the use of patriarchialist subcapitalist theory to challenge the status quo. But conceptualist capitalism implies that language is used to marginalize the underprivileged, but only if art is interchangeable with language; if that is not the case, Derrida's model of Sontagist camp is one of "neocultural structuralist theory", and thus meaningless.

1. Sargeant, J. (1977) The Context of Rubicon: Social realism and conceptualist capitalism. University of California Press

Phew. That was heavy going at 7.30 in the morning, and I'm not sure I understood all of it.

Anne may have been progressive for the time when she started writing, but I wouldn't class her as a feminist now. All romance writers I've ever read seem to support the traditional view of women, and Anne certainly is a romance writer. In addition, it seems to me that the older she gets, the more stereotypically she writes.

__________________Decaf coffee is an oxymoron. Instant coffee is an abomination. Give me the real thing and nobody gets hurt.
"Do. Or do not. There is no try" -- Yoda
VP of the Afra Lyon fan club!

It's fascinating, Ghyle. I look forward to reading more on it. I see what you mean about a class structure and the concept of capitalism. I am a bit of a Marxist freak myself and always dreamed that one day some of the drudges would band together and rise up against some of the nastier lord holders. Ah well, dreams are free.

And that, boys and girls, is why I only took the minimum sociology course required for my degree and retreated to the much more reassuring science-based realm of biological anthropology as an undergrad...and why, Professor Hottie's presence notwithstanding, I never took any philosophy courses.

This would, however, probably be the only way to get my Dad, a physics major with a philosophy minor, to read any McCaffrey (he's the only one in the family who doesn't read any of Anne's books, but he doesn't read much fiction.)

I don't believe in dumbing down. It treats everyone as if they're morons, no?

No, it treats them as though they're not experts in your field. I think a number of us would appreciate being able to read your analysis if it were rewritten for a more general audience. My Masters in Geology is not helping me decipher what you've written.

Sorry, but I'm not about to read all these other books/essays just so I can know what you are referring to in yours.

On another note, I think I found a typo:

Quote:

"Reality is a legal fiction," says Baudrillard; however, according to Tilton[5] , it is not so much reality that is a legal fiction, but rather the defining characteristic of reality. In Dragon Skin, Todd McCaffrey affirms social realism; in Dragonsblood, although, he reiterates conceptualist capitalism. It could be said that many constructions concerning the subsemantic paradigm of discourse exist.

I don't believe in dumbing down. It treats everyone as if they're morons, no?

Not if it is written in more plain and clear language, without any concourse towards the usage of technological quotations, which are often applied for the individual purpose of confounding and twisting the perceptions of the reader towards giving the author a degree of respect not earned by the complicated language, often completely unnecessary.

Writing in plain language makes writing open to many more. Writings done in unnecessary convoluted mannerisms are beneficial to no-one.

One must write in the level of sophisticated language adequate to one's means. As we may agree, it's no use parodying Leviathan, if we dumbed down the language, no? Since a like level is adequate to the means of parodying Leviathan. Likewise, there's no point in exploring difficult concepts, without an adequately responsible language, no? Ontological dialectalism is, in any other language, not ontological dialectism.

If you were presenting this to a strictly academic audience, familiar not only with the detailed terms and with the cited materials (as Brenda said, we're not going to run out and read any of those sources just to understand your essay) it would make sense to just present it as-is.

However, as Cheryl said in a more tactful way, we're not stupid, but we don't necessarily understand political philosophy/sociology jargon, which is in fact what most of that is. This is a general-audience message board devoted to an author who, frankly, ain't Dostoyevsky. Or, possibly more relevantly, Karl Marx. (In fact, I've read Marx and found him vastly more accessable than this.) The majority of us can't really follow, aren't going to blow the time and effort required to do all the reading that would be necessary for us to follow (as it would be largely useless to us in the context of our daily lives to learn it all), and as such none of us can make any useful commentary on it for you. So the only thing you gain by posting it is impressing us with how much discipline-specific technical vocabulary you have. As we aren't students of the field, there's no way we can discuss, agree with, or refute your claims unless they're presented in terms a layman can understand.

I'm sure Cheryl could post an essay on geology that would leave most of the rest of the board going "Huh?" and I know I could write a biological anthro paper that would be largely indecipherable to anyone without a degree in the subject, but there wouldn't be any point in either of us doing that, except to show off. If you really want opinions from an Anne McCaffrey fan board, you might want to consider abstracting this in terms that someone outside that field of study can understand.

I understand your concern with the accessibility issues created by the choice of language. However, there is a difference between saying bullsh*t is bullsh*t, and saying 'bovine by-products', just as there is in saying a sonnet is a sonnet, and saying it is a 14 line poem in three groups of four lines, the outer two lines of each rhyming with each other, and likewise the inner, with two final lines rhyming with each other, in lines with ten syllables, five of which have more stress than the others.

One has to use the precise word, with the precise meaning, for the precise statement.

Sorry, but I'm not about to read all these other books/essays just so I can know what you are referring to in yours.

The point is not to make you read them so you know what I think, the point is, if you want to read more, you can go to the point where I got the idea from. It is a courtesy for any reader who would like to read more, and would like to know whose ideas are being used.

Like quoting from a previous thread, for example: I want to let others know that I appreciate your thought and insights upon this matter at hand.

I'm afraid I agree with Anareth on this one. There's no point in being a stickler about accurate terms, if those terms are not understood by the majority of the people you are writing to.

You need to know your audience when you're posting at a general board such as this one. It is possible to write scientific text in a manner that's accessible to an educated audience who isn't necessarily familiar with your own field. Just take a look at a magazine such as Scientific American. Knowing your audience is not the same as dumbing down, and if you can't tell the difference between the two, I'd suggest you'd stick to silly posts and poems on this board, and publish your academic papers among readers who are qualified to read them without resorting to a dictionary.

__________________Decaf coffee is an oxymoron. Instant coffee is an abomination. Give me the real thing and nobody gets hurt.
"Do. Or do not. There is no try" -- Yoda
VP of the Afra Lyon fan club!

It's been almost twenty years since I was in that world (literary academia) and since then have mainly been immersed in the medical terminology. So even though I could take the time to read what you wrote, and am quite interested, I'll have to agree with those who ask that you translate it into simpler English. It's just like that whole lawsuit thing btn Anne and Austin, I don't bother to read it b/c I haven't bothered to translate the legalese, therefore have no opinion on it.

The whole Anne & Todd post was a randomly generated parody of typical postmodernism, which camp of thought is, frankly, a consignment of geriatic shoemakers. I had wondered what would happen if I put up an impressive piece of gibberish, and how people would react.

Cheryl, C_ris, et al, I salute you for advocating the best position: I agree totally with your position, actually. Anareth, you also almost blew my cover as well: what has Marx to do with Anne & Todd, eh?

I'm surprised, thpough, that nobody picked up on this sentence: "In Dragon Skin, Todd McCaffrey affirms social realism; in Dragonsblood, although, he reiterates conceptualist capitalism." Surely, Todd as a Communist, then a capitalist, is ludicrous, no?

Oh well. You've all been sporting chaps, and I hope that you'll forgive the somewhat reaches of my mind.

One must write in the level of sophisticated language adequate to one's means. As we may agree, it's no use parodying Leviathan, if we dumbed down the language, no? Since a like level is adequate to the means of parodying Leviathan. Likewise, there's no point in exploring difficult concepts, without an adequately responsible language, no? Ontological dialectalism is, in any other language, not ontological dialectism.

It is perfectly possible to parody Leviathan without using Hobbes' language. And it HAS been done by many, many people. Leviathan can be broken down into pieces. Asking people who have no or little beyond the average knowledge of the piece to swallow it whole is like asking an ant to swallow to a boulder.

I must agree with Anareth that dazzling us with academic phrases does little more than that. (and that Marx is a lot easier to read, also)

Now that I think of it, I remember one guy who was in the PhD program in English w/me, he was really into deconstructionism, and he ended up his presentation by saying that "therefore, this novel does not exist."